Developers of computer systems have made afrequent error in viewing conﬁguration management only as change management (as in a transaction system such as a database). It is a bit like believing that the weather is really an air conditioner with a nice neat knob toswitch it on and off.
mark burgess in ;login
so true when i consider how ITIL-ized processes increased costs per “change” so much that it was neccessary to hire cheaper, less experienced admins and hire more managers to provide a new interface between change managers and admins…
when Deutsche Bank outsourced their IT to IBM there was the so-called “SM-Team” which consisted of about 40 managers that are said to have used up all the budget just for interfacing between Deutsche Bank and the IBM IT staff. At one point they got desparate enough to “save money” by sending home the guards that were working at the datacenter, leaving it locked and unmonitored.
Their name (Schnittstellen Management, as in “interface management”) of course also gave room for more kinky misinterpretations. In a way they at least served a little purpose that way, and I got a strong feeling that the one Ex-IBM outsourcing specialist that was one of my “managers” might have been part of that project.
I figure adding that many managers between two IT organizations will make any project fail, and also these jobs will attract a very special kind of managers.
Which gets us back to the article by Mark Burgess – interesting ideas about how a network is a noisy environment where components just need to constantly stabilize themselves even when policy is corrupted etc.
A small correction: The correct name was “Sourcing Management” not “Schnittstellen management”.There’s a small article about them still available: http://www.computerwoche.de/heftarchiv/2004/18/1053521/
The real horror stories were in an issue of the DM:Euro magazine which is no longer in print.